Advertisement

Why Do Some Voters Prefer Female Candidates? The Role of Perceived Incorruptibility in Arab Elections

  • Lindsay J. Benstead
  • Ellen Lust
Chapter
Part of the Political Corruption and Governance book series (PCG)

Abstract

Are individuals who view women as less corrupt more likely to vote for women? Drawing on research from the social psychology of gender, this chapter examines whether and how perceptions about women’s incorruptibility shape their electability. Many citizens see female politicians as less corrupt. Others state that men are less corrupt, a view consistent with “hostile sexism.” When asked directly, people who state that women are less corrupt or who see no difference between men and women in their propensity to engage in corruption are more likely to say that they would vote for females. However, a survey experiment casts doubt on these conclusions. Gender egalitarianism, not positive bias, may be most likely to benefit females, which is consistent with theories of gender role congruity and ambivalent sexism.

References

  1. AlHassan-Alolo, N. (2007). Gender and corruption: Testing the new consensus. Public Administration and Development, 27(3), 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes, T. D., & Beaulieu, E. (2014). Gender stereotypes and corruption: How candidates affect perceptions of election fraud. Politics & Gender, 10(3), 265–391.Google Scholar
  3. Beaman, L., Chattopadhyay, R., Duflo, E., Pande, R., & Topalova, P. (2009). Powerful women: Does exposure reduce bias? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(4), 1497–1540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benstead, L. J. (2014). Effects of interviewer-respondent gender interaction on attitudes toward women and politics: Findings from Morocco. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 26(3), 369–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benstead, L. J., Jamal, A. A., & Lust, E. (2015). Is it gender, religion or both? A role congruity theory of candidate electability in transitional Tunisia. Perspectives on Politics, 13(1), 74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bjarnegård, E. (2013). Gender, informal institutions and political recruitment: Explaining male dominance in parliamentary representation. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Cammett, M. (2011). The political economy of development in the Middle East. In E. Lust (Ed.), The Middle East (12th ed., pp. 99–142). Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chirillo, G., & Esarey, J. (2013). ‘Fairer sex’ or purity myth? Corruption, gender, and institutional context. Politics & Gender, 9(4), 361–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 151–192). Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  10. Dollar, D., Fisman, R., & Gatti, R. (2001). Are women really the “fairer” sex? Corruption and women in government. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 46(4), 423–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dulani, B., Rakner, L., Benstead, L. J., & Wang, V. (Forthcoming). Because we expect more from you: The gender and corruption factor in the 2014 presidential elections. Malawi Journal of Social Science.Google Scholar
  12. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frank, B., Lambsdorff, J. G., & Boehm, F. (2011). Gender and corruption: Lessons from laboratory corruption experiments. European Journal of Development Research, 23(1), 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Freedom House. Freedom in the World 2012. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2012#.VdO7Sr6Z6fS. Accessed 18 Aug 2015.
  16. Glicke, P., & Fiske, S. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goetz, A. M. (2007). Political cleaners: Women as the new anti-corruption force? Development and Change, 38(1), 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 119–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lawless, J. (2004). Women, war, and winning elections: Gender stereotyping in the post-September 11th era. Political Research Quarterly, 57(3), 479–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lust, E. (2011). Institutions and governance. In E. Lust (Ed.), The Middle East (12th ed., pp. 143–192). Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  21. Mapondera, G., & Smith, D. (2014, May 29). Malawian president Joyce Banda faces electoral humiliation – and possibly jail. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/29/malawian-president-joyce-banda-faces-electoral-humiliation-possibly-jail. Accessed 13 May 2016.
  22. Mathis, J. (2015, August 11). No, Kathleen Kane scandal is not a ‘blow to women.’ Philadelphia. http://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/08/11/kathleen-kane-scandal-blow-to-women/. Accessed 13 May 2016.
  23. Pew Research Center. (2014, October 7). Education and hard work important for getting ahead. http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/10/09/emerging-and-developing-economies-much-more-optimistic-than-rich-countries-about-the-future/inequality-05/. Accessed 9 July 2017.
  24. Program on governance and local development. (2015). http://gld.gu.se/. Accessed 9 July 2017.
  25. Rivas, M. F. (2013). An experiment on corruption and gender. Bulletin of Economic Research, 65(1), 10–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2008). The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  27. Shalaby, M. (2016). Female politicians and perceived corruption in developing democracies: Evidence from Lebanon, working paper presented, Kansas State University, May 6–7, 2016.Google Scholar
  28. Stensöta, H., Wängnerud, L., & Svensson, R. (2015). Gender and corruption: The mediating power of institutional logics. Governance, 28(4), 475–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Swamy, A., Knack, S., Lee, Y., & Azfar, O. (2001). Gender and corruption. Journal of Development Economics, 64(1), 25–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Transitional Governance Project. (2017). http://transitionalgovernanceproject.org/. Accessed 9 July 2017.
  31. Transparency International. (2011). Putting corruption out of business. http://www.transparency.org/research/bps2011. Accessed 9 July 2017.
  32. Transparency International. (2014). Gender, equality and corruption: What are the linkages? http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/publication/policy_position_01_2014_gender_equality_and_corruption_what_are_the_linkage. Accessed 9 July 2017.
  33. Transparency International. (2016). https://www.transparency.org/. Accessed 16 May 2016.
  34. United Nations Statistics Division. (2015). World statistics pocketbook. http://data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx?crName=Morocco. Accessed 12 Aug 2015.
  35. Watts, J. (2016, May 12). A warrior to the end: Dilma Rousseff a sinner and saint in impeachment fight. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/09/dilma-rousseff-brazil-impeachment-fight-congress-vote. Accessed 13 May 2016.
  36. Women in national parliaments. Inter-parliamentary union. http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif-arc.htm. Accessed 12 Aug 2015.
  37. World Values Survey. (1981–2014). Longitudinal aggregate v.20150418. World Values Survey Association. www.worldvaluessurvey.org. Aggregate file producer: JDSystems. Madrid, Spain.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lindsay J. Benstead
    • 1
  • Ellen Lust
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Political Science, Mark O. Hatfield School of GovernmentPortland State UniversityPortlandUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations